RIP Net Neutrality

[begreen]

In the utopian world there is no greed, no monopolies. Corporations care about the citizens and do no harm. All we need to do is get rid of humans and replace them with robots.

 

[Grisu]

Tmonter: I agree with most of your ideals, particularly "the great thing about capitalism, when a company displeases customers, someone always inevitably steps in an fills the void provided regulations do not prevent them from doing so."

That assumes the customers have the money to entice the companies to do so. As we will see with the net neutrality, capitalism caters to the wealthy who create their own little "bubble" and forget about the rest of the population. When those "customers" have not enough money no one will step in. A few are better off, a lot are doing worse.

The idea of a democratic government is also not the problem; It is that they are not representing the whole society anymore. For years, governments have been serving corporate interests and people complain about the state of the US. Now you want to get rid off government altogether and let companies run the show? Wait until all the capital and power are concentrated in a few hands and then tell me how those "free markets" are working out for you. The millions who go hungry to bed or die from treatable diseases can tell you how well capitalism works for the poor.

(Btw. Are you not working for the government, too?)

 

[Grisu]

http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

I just read that article and can hardly type for laughing. Did you actually read it? Here are some excerpts:

"For fifteen years now I've watched as phone and cable duopolies lobby to pass draft legislation designed to keep broadband uncompetitive. Specifically, in more than a dozen states these protectionist measures either hinder or outright ban a town or city's ability to wire itself for broadband (either alone or with a private industry partner)..."

"The worst part of these bills is that at their base they're simply duopolists buying laws that keep towns and cities from making regional infrastructure decisions for themselves, whether that's building their own core fiber network or developing a public/private network build partnership."

Let me get that straight: You would actually support a government built network? (You are not turning in a socialist now, are you?) And you would agree with the point that big companies use their wealth to buy the political power that maintains their market share? So who is the real culprit here, the government or big business? And now you want to give up on net neutrality regulations that are against corporate interests? (Still laughing.)

 

[TMonter]

No - I am nowhere near sold on that idea. I think we have huge government bloat that needs to be addressed. I also believe that there needs to be rules, regulations and laws that allow for fair competition. Its the only reason that Microsoft (as one example) didn't buy up the computer world. Nobody likes it when corps and mega wealthy got a free pass on opening their checkbooks for political reasons. And trust me - nobody is gonna like big checkbooks buying up the internet either.

Define "fair competition" Jags, the government already creates huge barriers to entry at both the local, state and national levels.

That's false about Microsoft by the way, but a topic of another discussion.

The whole idea of net neutrality is that the government should force ISP's (who paid for and developed the infrastructure) to treat all data on the internet equally. This means they are not allowed to differentiate by data type and charge different rates for different users.

All the "logic" (ie appeals to authority and emotion) supporting this position I've seen here is basically free-market hate and ignorance of how we got here in the first place.

 

[TMonter]

I just read that article and can hardly type for laughing. Did you actually read it? Here are some excerpts:

"For fifteen years now I've watched as phone and cable duopolies lobby to pass draft legislation designed to keep broadband uncompetitive. Specifically, in more than a dozen states these protectionist measures either hinder or outright ban a town or city's ability to wire itself for broadband (either alone or with a private industry partner)..."

"The worst part of these bills is that at their base they're simply duopolists buying laws that keep towns and cities from making regional infrastructure decisions for themselves, whether that's building their own core fiber network or developing a public/private network build partnership."

Let me get that straight: You would actually support a government built network? (You are not turning in a socialist now, are you?) And you would agree with the point that big companies use their wealth to buy the political power that maintains their market share? So who is the real culprit here, the government or big business? And now you want to give up on net neutrality regulations that are against corporate interests? (Still laughing.)

No Grisu, perhaps you should understand my argument for a change. The wired article gets the right problem and draws the wrong conclusion.

 

[TMonter]

That assumes the customers have the money to entice the companies to do so. As we will see with the net neutrality, capitalism caters to the wealthy who create their own little "bubble" and forget about the rest of the population. When those "customers" have not enough money no one will step in. A few are better off, a lot are doing worse.

The idea of a democratic government is also not the problem; It is that they are not representing the whole society anymore. For years, governments have been serving corporate interests and people complain about the state of the US. Now you want to get rid off government altogether and let companies run the show? Wait until all the capital and power are concentrated in a few hands and then tell me how those "free markets" are working out for you. The millions who go hungry to bed or die from treatable diseases can tell you how well capitalism works for the poor.

(Btw. Are you not working for the government, too?)

Actually Grisu, if this were the case the public would have never gotten automobiles, cell phones and a myriad of other technologies that capitalism brought about. Capitalism caters to companies who can please the most customers and get them to voluntarily buy their products. The idea that capitalism only enriches a few is false and a child's argument that has been busted over and over again. The companies that do the best inevitably serve the greatest number of people.

The idea of a democratic government is the problem. Democratic governments always evolve into oligarchies or dictatorships when the people (or their representatives) are allowed to vote on everything.

Ahh more appeals to emotion. The problem is not that governments serve corporate interests Grisu, it's that they even have the power to do so in the first place. If the government cannot pick winners and losers by regulating (other than to protect property and lives) then companies must compete for customers on the quality of their service.

And no, I do not work for the government.

 

[Grisu]

The whole idea of net neutrality is that the government should force ISP's (who paid for and developed the infrastructure) to treat all data on the internet equally. This means they are not allowed to differentiate by data type and charge different rates for different users.

A lot of the infrastructure has been built using the publics-right-of-way. Hence, net neutrality is simply the price to be paid by the network companies for using that privilige. Free market, remember?

No Grisu, perhaps you should understand my argument for a change. The wired article gets the right problem and draws the wrong conclusion.

How many of the bills mentioned in the article prevent private companies from building networks?

 

[Jags]

"The worst part of these bills is that at their base they're simply duopolists buying laws that keep towns and cities from making regional infrastructure decisions for themselves, whether that's building their own core fiber network or developing a public/private network build partnership."

Slid right over that one, eh T? Oh - but these corps will do what is right by the people. Yeah - gimme a break.

 

[MishMouse]

The fact that these people control the laws and the future of technology should create a slight uneasy feeling.

(broken link removed)

How can someone decide the future of technology if they themselves don't understand it?

 

[Grisu]

Actually Grisu, if this were the case the public would have never gotten automobiles, cell phones and a myriad of other technologies that capitalism brought about.

As long as someone lends those customers the money: http://static6.businessinsider.com/...50000/household-debt-as-percentage-of-gdp.jpg

Capitalism caters to companies who can please the most customers and get them to voluntarily buy their products.

Wants are voluntarily bought, not needs.

The idea that capitalism only enriches a few is false and a child's argument that has been busted over and over again.

Empirical fact:

The companies that do the best inevitably serve the greatest number of people.

You must tell that to the Indian and Chinese companies. They have apparently not understood capitalism when catering to American consumers instead of their home markets.

The idea of a democratic government is the problem. Democratic governments always evolve into oligarchies or dictatorships when the people (or their representatives) are allowed to vote on everything.

The problem is not the democratic idea that all citizens can participate equally in the political process but that the wealthy will rig the system in their favor. The same and worse would happen without the government.

And no, I do not work for the government.

I did not quote you.

 

[DBNH22]

The problem is not the democratic idea that all citizens can participate equally in the political process but that the wealthy will rig the system in their favor. The same and worse would happen without the government.

The wealthy may have rigged the system in their favor but they sure had a lot of help from both our self serving federal government and a population whose main characteristics are stupidity and apathy.

 

[bmblank]

Your graph assumed that the country is becoming more and more capitalistic. I would contend that we are less capitalistic now than we were in 1917. If we were truly capitalists than the company's that are "too big to fail" would have actually failed and companies that value selling a good product or service would succeed.

 

[Grisu]

The wealthy may have rigged the system in their favor but they sure had a lot of help from ... a population whose main characteristics are stupidity and apathy.

Surely not including people who don't have the capital but defend the ones who have?

Your graph assumed that the country is becoming more and more capitalistic. I would contend that we are less capitalistic now than we were in 1917. If we were truly capitalists than the company's that are "too big to fail" would have actually failed and companies that value selling a good product or service would succeed.

Here is a graph normalized for overall income. We have reached early 20th century levels again.
(broken image removed)
Guess who did not want the banks to fail: The capitalists who were about to lose their money. When taxpayers are anyway assuming all the risk, we should switch to full 100% reserve banking, which means government assumes full control over the currency. But who would vote for more government?

 

[DBNH22]

Surely not including people who don't have the capital but defend the ones who have?

?

It's possible to make distinctions among those who do have the capital as to their individual levels of moral depravity. I have a considerable amount of loathing for both big business and big government yet logic dictates that I cannot rightfully despise every last individual with a dollar more in their pocket than I have in mine.

You kind of beat around the bush but give me the impression that you're an ardent advocate for collectivism in most if not all of its forms. In a truly civilized and compassionate society we must have social obligations but unchecked, mindless collectivism is the perfect antithesis of man's innate individuality.

 

[begreen]

 

[TMonter]

As long as someone lends those customers the money: http://static6.businessinsider.com/...50000/household-debt-as-percentage-of-gdp.jpg


Wants are voluntarily bought, not needs.


Empirical fact:

You must tell that to the Indian and Chinese companies. They have apparently not understood capitalism when catering to American consumers instead of their home markets.


The problem is not the democratic idea that all citizens can participate equally in the political process but that the wealthy will rig the system in their favor. The same and worse would happen without the government.


I did not quote you.

The problem is you are claiming what we have now is capitalism and it's not, it's a bastardized version of it called Crony Capitalism or mercantilism.

Again you seem to have bought into the idea that just because there is a democratic process that it has good outcomes. History shows us this is far from the truth.

 

[TMonter]

Your graph assumed that the country is becoming more and more capitalistic. I would contend that we are less capitalistic now than we were in 1917. If we were truly capitalists than the company's that are "too big to fail" would have actually failed and companies that value selling a good product or service would succeed.

Bingo! In a capitalist system the "too big to fail" banks would have failed and their assets sold. Instead the bad actors were bailed out.

 

[TMonter]

A lot of the infrastructure has been built using the publics-right-of-way. Hence, net neutrality is simply the price to be paid by the network companies for using that privilige. Free market, remember?

How many of the bills mentioned in the article prevent private companies from building networks?

Except that that is not how the right of way access was used now was it?

Actually quite a few have clauses in them that prevent competition by other firms.

 

[begreen]

Gaming the system, the Verizon way.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/14/5...-verizon-is-playing-the-fcc-and-its-customers

 

[TMonter]

Gaming the system, the Verizon way.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/14/5...-verizon-is-playing-the-fcc-and-its-customers

And yet there is no argument made in the article other than appeals to emotion and authority yet again.

 

[BrotherBart]

Gaming the system, the Verizon way.

I talked about that here before. I have seen the Red V noose tightening around my neck here for four years and it is nearing completion. Being one of the last copper holdouts now that FIOS is in our hood, they want to do me great favors by connecting me to FIOS and changing my monthly cost from $35 to $134 a month.

 

[Ashful]

I talked about that here before. I have seen the Red V noose tightening around my neck here for four years and it is nearing completion. Being one of the last copper holdouts now that FIOS is in our hood, they want to do me great favors by connecting me to FIOS and changing my monthly cost from $35 to $134 a month.

Are they really the only game in town? We have almost a half-dozen mainstream choices, here, with Verizon and Comcast being the two big players (probably each owning about 40% of the local market). If you want superior channel selection, and don't mind YouTube throttling, then you go Verizon. If you get upset with them, and don't mind losing most of your best channels (AHC, Military History, BBC, etc.), then you skip over to Comcast. If you want to buck the system, and think you're making some kind of point, you jump to one of the half dozen smaller players.

 

[begreen]

Depends on the location. Here we only have two options for broadband, Comcast cable and CenturyLink dsl. You could do Verizon 4G if near one of their cells I suppose, but we are not.

 

[BrotherBart]

Somebody explain to me why I should have to sign up with Comcast cable just to have a freakin telephone. Or triple my bill just so Verizon can move to unregulated VOIP and at the same time save money by not having to maintain the copper lines.

 

[BrotherBart]

Are they really the only game in town? We have almost a half-dozen mainstream choices, here

Since they own the "last mile" to the house, yes they are the only game in town.